Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Walraven

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 15, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TREVOR TROY WALRAVEN, Defendant-Respondent.

          Argued and submitted February 15, 2018

          Josephine County Circuit Court 99CR0013; Rodger J. Isaacson, Senior Judge.

          Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant.

          Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Andy Simrin argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief was Andy Simrin PC.

          Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.

         Case Summary: Defendant was convicted of crimes committed in 1998, when he was 14 years old, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a 30-year minimum term. After defendant served fifteen years of his sentence, the sentencing court held a second-look hearing, determined that defendant should be conditionally released, and entered a dispositional order to that effect under ORS 420A.203(4), which was not appealed. A month later, the court entered an order of conditional release under ORS 420A.206(2), providing for the terms and conditions of defendant's release. The state appeals the latter order, arguing that the court erred because defendant was ineligible for a second look under ORS 420A.203(1). Defendant argues that he was eligible and that, in any event, his eligibility is not reviewable on appeal of the order entered under ORS 420A.206(2). Held: A defendant's eligibility for conditional release is reviewable on appeal of a dispositional order entered under ORS 420A.203(4), but is not reviewable on appeal of an order of conditional release entered under ORS 420A.206(2). As such, the issue raised by the state is not reviewable in this appeal.

         Affirmed.

         [293 Or.App. 407] AOYAGI, J.

         The state appeals an order of conditional release entered under ORS 420A.206. Defendant was convicted of aggravated murder and related charges for crimes that he committed in 1998 when he was 14 years old. In 2017, the sentencing court held a second-look hearing. The court determined that defendant should be conditionally released and entered a dispositional order to that effect under ORS 420A.203. The state did not appeal. A month later, the court entered an order of conditional release under ORS 420A.206, specifying the conditions and terms of defendant's release. The state appeals that order, arguing that defendant was statutorily ineligible for a second look and therefore should not have been conditionally released. Because we agree with defendant that his eligibility for a second look was review-able only on appeal from the dispositional order of April 7, 2017-which the state did not appeal-we affirm.

         A detailed rendition of the procedural history of this case is unnecessary. For purposes of the present appeal, the relevant facts are minimal and undisputed. In 2000, defendant was convicted of aggravated murder and related charges for crimes that he committed in 1998 when he was 14 years old, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 30-year minimum term. In 2014, the sentencing court held a second-look hearing pursuant to ORS 420A.203, which allows certain persons convicted of crimes that they committed when they were under the age of 18 to be considered for conditional release once they have served half of their sentence of imprisonment. The court entered a dispositional order in late 2014, ruling that defendant should be conditionally released, which the state appealed. While that appeal was pending, defendant successfully obtained unrelated post-conviction relief. Defendant's conviction for aggravated murder was thereafter set aside, and, as a result, the state's appeal of the 2014 second-look order was dismissed as moot on the state's motion. State v. Walraven, 282 Or.App. 649, 654-55, 385 P.3d 1178 (2016).

         Defendant later entered a new plea that resulted in a new aggravated murder conviction, and the sentencing court again imposed the sentence of life imprisonment with [293 Or.App. 408] a 30-year minimum term. Based on the new conviction, the sentencing court held a new second-look hearing in 2017. After the hearing, the court determined that defendant should be conditionally released under ORS 420A.203. On April 7, 2017, it entered an order "that conditional release is the appropriate disposition pursuant to ORS 420A.203 (4)(a)(B)." The state did not appeal the dispositional order. Thereafter, on May 17, 2017, the sentencing court entered an order of conditional release, specifying the conditions and terms of defendant's release, as required by ORS 420A.206. In this appeal from that order, the state argues that the sentencing court committed an error of law in its order of May 17, 2017, because defendant is not eligible for a second look under ORS 420A.203 and therefore should not have been conditionally released. In particular, the state argues that, as a matter of law, under ORS 420A.203(1), the second-look procedure does not apply to persons sentenced to life imprisonment with a 30-year minimum term.

         Defendant's response is two-fold. First, he contends that his eligibility for a second look under ORS 420A.203(1) is not reviewable on appeal of the sentencing court's order of conditional release of May 17, 2017, and could only have been reviewed on appeal of the court's dispositional order of April 7, 2017, which was not appealed. Second, on the merits, defendant argues that he was eligible for a second look under ORS 420A.203(1) and that the sentencing court did not err in giving him a second look.[1]

         The parties' arguments pose a question of statutory construction regarding ORS 420A.203 and ORS 420A.206. The correct construction of a statute is a question of law. Karjalainen v. Curtis Johnston & Pennywise, Inc.,208 Or.App. 674, 681, 146 P.3d 336 (2006), rev den,342 Or. 473 (2007). In construing a statute, the text and context are "primary" and "must be given primary weight in the analysis." State v. Gaines,346 Or. 160, 171, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009). In this case, as explained below, our analysis of the text and context of ORS 420A.203 and ORS 420A.2 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.